Iran has been much in the news lately, with its atomic bomb, er, energy program, its nuclear scientist short lifespan, its “Close the Strait of Hormuz” exercise, its telling the US that an aircraft carrier had better not come back into the Persian Gulf, and its test firing of a home built missile. So I thought a look at its internal politics may prove interesting.

The power struggle in Iran between the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could lead to Ahmadinejad’s resignation. It was predictable that when Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi resigned (or was dismissed) from Ahmadinejad’s cabinet in April, 2011, it would be costly for Ahmadinejad. The extent of the damage for Ahmadinejad’s defiance of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is now becoming clear. According to the Tehran Etedaal newspaper, several people close to Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested by security services. Moslehi defied Ahmadinejad by being more loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Got that? It has always been difficult to be a player in Iranian politics/religion.

The attack on the British embassy in Tehran in November, 2011, by Iranian “youths” is another example of this situation. Ali Larijani, speaker of the Iranian parliament, condemned Great Britain and said that the action of Iranian “youth” was reflecting the view of all Iranians. This line had to have been transmitted through Khamenei’s office that already supported the embassy attack as “the people’s reaction” to Britain’s hostile economic action (sanctions).

Ahmadinejad attempted to undermine Larijani, a political competitor and possible presidential candidate in 2013. Ahmadinejad took a big political chance and went against the already established line by opposing the diplomatic sanctions already called for against Great Britain. A more cynical interpretation of the Iranian president’s tactic would suggest he recognizes that Ayatollah Khamenei does not support him or his political future, and in consequence Ahmadinejad decided to seek political support from the more moderate elements in Iranian politics. His turning to those who represent a less confrontational wing of Iran’s political life may be his only hope of continuing to remain a major player.

From a practical point of view the internal security service of VEVAK, the al Quds force within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the Council of Guardians are the operative instruments of Ayatollah Khamenei that hold the physical and ideological reins of power. If an individual or group seeks to wrest power from the existing structure militarily, judicially, or politically, they seemingly have an insurmountable obstacle to overcome. If a politician (in this case Ahmadinejad) takes a line contrary to that which is generally approved by the supreme leader’s office, but can point to a form of consent from one of the power centers (in this case, the Council of Guardians), he has covered himself.

The ultimate question then becomes whether or not Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can remain as the supreme leader, and the answer is in the hands of the religious hierarchy, not the electoral process. And the answer to this question has some very real implications for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Just what the rest of the world needs – a political power struggle in Iran while it develops nuclear weapons and buys delivery systems from North Korea.

But that’s just my opinion.

Rush Limbaugh blasts Ron Paul as the Conservative Killer:

…the majority of people that voted him were not Republican. And in another poll, the percentage of Ron Paul voters who say they will vote for the Republican nominee is… like 80% of Tea Party voters in New Hampshire said no matter who the Republican nominee is they’re voting for it. The Ron Paul number is 40%. Now, as I say, I’ve gotta double confirm. It’s ostensibly Rasmussen and we’re double-checking this, but what I know so far, or what I’ve been told is that Ron Paul supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on, and most of Huntsman’s voters and most of Paul’s voters were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, also according to this polling data.

…Here we go. It’s the exit polling data from Fox, and it is on political matters, “Do you consider yourself very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative?” You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal. So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives. And that’s one of the things that I wanted to see because with this big push — what is happening here, the final push now that’s on to get Romney the nomination, Newt and Perry, with their attacks, have made it impossible to defend them. I hate to tell you, folks, but you just can’t put your name to what they’re out there saying, vulture capitalism and so forth.

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in. Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else. So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents. Ron Paul is a conservative killer. Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

So 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. 40%!

Where’s the other 60% going to go? Apparently Obama.

While 80% of the tea-party voters will support WHOEVER the Republican nominee is.

That should tell us a whole lot about Ron Paul and his supporters. They cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. The only thing Ron Paul can guarantee is to kill off Santorum and Newt’s chances.

With that I’ll segue into the John Gibson show yesterday in which Gibson asked Ron Paul supporters to call in and give him reasons why he is so awesome: (its 15 minutes well spent?)

And hey, guess who else loves themselves some Ron Paul?

The Iranian regime’s English language propaganda channel, PressTV, has discovered a new American idol: presidential contender Rep. Ron Paul.

PressTV has stepped up its coverage of Paul’s campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in recent weeks, featuring his anti-Israel rants, his claim that sanctions against Iran are “acts of war,” his approval of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and much more.

The Iranian government channel portrays Ron Paul as an American hero, and brings on conspiracy theorists masquerading as political “analysts” to laud him for “challenging the American establishment” and the “corporate neo-conservative Zionist consensus,” that cabal of Jews, banksters, and Reagan Democrats who in Tehran’s eyes (and in the eyes of these Ron Paul supporters) run the world.

It’s a script taken almost word-for-word from the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

So go ahead Paulbots….vote for Ron Paul, or Obama when RP doesn’t get the nomination but I will never pull the lever for this nut.

The Obama debacle continues on…

Iran has threatened to halt traffic through the strait if the West moves to toughen sanctions including an oil embargo to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program. The strait is the passageway for about a third of the world’s seaborne-traded oil last year, according to US Energy Department data.

“Iran has total control over the strategic waterway,” Iranian Naval Commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari told Iran’s Press TV yesterday as the Iranian navy conducted a 10-day exercise in international waters. “Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces.”

“The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity,” said Lieutenant Rebecca Rebarich, a US Navy spokeswoman in Bahrain, site of the 5th Fleet headquarters, in an e-mail. “Any disruption will not be tolerated.”

It’s obvious that the Iranians view Obama as a weak leader. Someone who likes to order predator strikes of single individual terrorists rather than making the tough, bold decisions. They understand the man will back down to Iran’s saber rattling. The rest of the western world would have something to say about the closing of the strait, that’s for sure, but with Obama’s jelly backbone it won’t be the US they will be worried about.

John Bolton:

His failure to secure an agreement with the Iraqi government is, as Bolton said, “catastrophic”. It has emboldened the Iranian government who is, and will be, a great threat to the western world.

While I agree with some that sooner or later the Iraqi’s were going to have to take control of their future it’s obvious that they were not completely ready at this point. The Iranian threat to the western world is too great to have not worked night and day to secure a diplomatic agreement on the extension of the SOFA. Honestly, we all know why this administration didn’t work too hard in securing an agreement that was palatable to both sides…his re-election.

He wanted to be able to say that he ended this war, and now the Iranians are even more emboldened, and even more a threat.

Stephen Hayes on Tuesday (skip to the 4:30 minute mark)

Iraq will become Barack Obama’s Vietnam. Not in the boogieman sense that the left has been using the Vietnam War for the last 40 years where every American use of force is the “next Vietnam” but rather in its aftermath.

The Vietnam War ostensibly ended in ended in early 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. The agreement was based upon an agreement by all sides to stop hostile activities and for American troops to depart. The Americans would continue to supply the South Vietnamese military. In addition, the SVN leadership was explicitly assured that were the North Vietnamese to resume hostilities the United States would begin bombing Hanoi and other targets in the North.

Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, the promises of arms and support were mirages. In 1974 Congress cut military aid to Vietnam from $2.3 billion to $1 billion and then in 1975 to $300 million. Thanks to the Democrat’s Case-Church Amendment, when the North had resupplied and resumed hostilities, the promised US bombing never came. In April 1975 Saigon fell and the South surrendered.

Then came the nightmare. Upwards of a million South Vietnamese found themselves in prisons, “re-education camps” or other tropical outposts where they were treated to starvation, torture and murder. Hundreds of thousands more braved the oceans in order to escape, a quarter of them never reaching shore. The effects of this nightmare reached into Cambodia and Laos as well.

And now there is Iraq.

The war in Iraq was obviously far different from the one in Vietnam. Unfortunately however, the aftermath may be similarly unpleasant.

While Iran will not invade Iraq anytime soon, the country could still become a vassal of the ayatollahs. If Iraq escapes that fate it may well collapse into a civil war that eventually draws not only the involvement of the Iranians, but of the Saudis, the Turks and other neighbors as well. Oh, and, yes, perhaps eventually the Americans again.

However one feels about the war in Iraq in the first place, the manner of the exit ensures one thing, that the American blood and treasure spent toppling Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a viable democracy in the Middle East will likely be for naught.

Not that Saddam Hussein will be coming back anytime soon, he won’t… but the country he once ruled will likely become a basket case or a failed state.

The writing on the wall has been there for years. Candidate Obama had been a critic of the Surge and President Obama’s only priority in Iraq seemed to be leaving.

Iran was paying close attention. Although they had been heavily arming insurgents and Shia militants during the dark days of 2005-2007, by 2009 their efforts had largely been defeated with the establishment of a fledgling but credible Iraqi government infrastructure.

However, the national elections of 2010 opened the door to Iran once again. Barack Obama was inexplicably a proponent of a laissez faire policy in reference to the dysfunction in the formation of the Iraqi government following the 2010 elections. To anyone looking (and there were many) it was clear that the United States was disengaged and focused on wrapping up the operation.

Such chaos invites the efforts of a strong horse. Iran was willing to play. With an ambiguous constitution and a Chief Justice carrying Prime Minister Maliki’s water, the Iranians became the power brokers behind the new government, forcing Mr. Maliki into a coalition that included the Sadrists, erstwhile insurgents led by cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. This was only possible because of the vacuum left by the Obama administration. Had the Iraqis been confident that the United States would be standing with them until they could stand on their own, there would have been no vacuum for the Iranians to fill.

As things stand today, Iraq sits on a precipice of disaster. Within the last three months terrorist attacks have increased, sectarian infighting has escalated and two of the country’s eighteen provinces have sought semi-autonomous status, seeking to enjoy the autonomy the Kurds enjoy. Other provinces will surely follow. For a country with a weak central government and deep divisions amongst its population, such a centrifugal force is not exactly helpful. This will be particularly problematic as the national government seeks to collect and distribute oil revenues, bolster the power grid and perform other traditional tasks. Apart from the growing separatism at the local level, the federal government is a patchwork of alliances, most of which are held together by Iranian influence. That influence comes in various forms, from their covert (but hardly secret) support of terror groups Khataib Hizballah and Asaib Ahl al-Haqq, who are not only responsible for killing US troops but for targeted assassination across the country, to their overt economic, diplomatic and religious ties. As if to put a cherry bomb on the top of this powder keg, the day after the last American troops left the country, the Shiite-led government issued a warrant for Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, the country’s highest ranking Sunni official, on terrorism charges.

Of course it did not have to be this way. American Military planners had long sought to leave a force of between 20,000 to 30,000 troops to provide continued security, run counterinsurgency operations and to focus on training of the Iraqi military. Most analysts believed that number was the minimum number necessary to maintain many of the hard fought gains won over the last four years.

While 20,000 troops may sound rather small in terms of maintaining gains achieved in a country of 30 million people, the message they would have sent to the Iraqis, and equally importantly, to the Iranians, would have been crystal clear: The United States will not allow a democratically fragile Iraq to become an battleground of the Middle East or an Iranian puppet.

That however was never Barack Obama’s message. His campaign would later reveal his message: “Ending the War in Iraq: A Promise Kept”

For some perspective, one might observe that leaving sizable troop levels in a theater for a period of time after a conflict in order to maintain hard fought gains is nothing new. A quarter century after the end of WWII there were 260,000 American troops in Germany and today, sixty years after the Korean War there are 30,000 US troops in South Korea. Obviously the Korean peninsula and Western Europe are different than Mesopotamia, but the notion remains that leaving troops to midwife a long term positive outcome is far from foreign. At least to most people not named Barack Obama.

Instead, the message the Iraqis and their neighbors received from the United States was one of detachment driven by a President with little interest in anything other than ending “Bush’s War”. Whereas Bush talked with Prime Minister Maliki on a weekly basis, President Obama spoke with him rarely and not at all between February 13 and October 21 of this year, critical days in the period leading up to the end of the American presence in Iraq.

After months of doing nothing the administration finally proposed in August of this year to leave 3,000-5,000 troops, far below what most believed was necessary to secure the peace. Those numbers, far too small to fulfill its mission did prove helpful to the administration however: it provided a fig leaf behind which it could hide its retreat. This fig leaf came in the form of a lack of immunity for American troops on Iraqi soil. While Mr. Maliki and other members of the government may have been willing to go to the mattresses to secure such immunity for a substantial force that demonstrated a serious American commitment to Iraq, they were not willing to do so for a token force that would provide little support or security. Even that fig leaf was too small to provide true cover because the administration could have easily put any forces in Iraq on the diplomatic rolls, which would have provided such immunity.

At the end of the day, Iraq will be Barack Obama’s Vietnam in the sense that not only will most of the hard fought gains be lost, but there will be thousands who will pay the price for his choice, starting with the innocents who will be caught in the sectarian crossfire. They will not be the only ones however. So too will a price be paid by neighbors who fear an emboldened Iran as well as freedom advocates across the region who might have sought replicate Iraq’s success and build secular, democratic governments. And then there is the world’s confidence in the United States as a long term ally in the fight for regional stability and a bulwark against Iranian intervention.

Of course all of this comes on the heels of another futile round of sanctions seeking to keep the Iranians from developing or delivering a nuclear weapon. Barack Obama has certainly conveyed a message of strength and stability to the region. “Ending the War in Iraq: A Promise Kept” Indeed.

What a shock. This President will send troops into Uganda, drop bombs into Libya, back fanatical Muslims in Egypt, but when it comes to Iran….and our top secret technology, he’s a bit timid:

With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war.

…One official told Fox News on Thursday that the incident is a huge loss and makes the top-secret helicopter tail lost during the Usama bin Laden raid in Pakistan “look like a pittance.” The official said there are real fears the Iranians will share this technology with the Russians and the Chinese, in addition to using it themselves.

What a pansy.

And then he brags about bin-Laden but allows the Muslim Brotherhood to come ever so closer to their dreamed about sixth Caliphate.

The destruction he has done to this country, and it’s future security is breathtaking to behold.

This is an epic Obama failure masked as a fulfilled campaign pledge.

The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.

Barack Obama announced at a White House press conference that all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of December, a decision forced by the final collapse of lengthy talks between the US and the Iraqi government on the issue.

The Iraqi decision is a boost to Iran, which has close ties with many members of the Iraqi government and which had been battling against the establishment of permanent American bases.

Obama told America not to look behind the curtain:

Obama attempted to make the most of it by presenting the withdrawal as the fulfilment of one of his election promises.

“Today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he told reporters.

But he had already announced this earlier this year, and the real significance today was in the failure of Obama, in spite of the cost to the US in dollars and deaths, to persuade the Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki to allow one or more American bases to be kept in the country.

Obama has set the stage for Iranian dominance.

The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis.

This is not a little failure. This is a gigantic failure. Worst of all, it squanders the sacrifice made by so many in the US military.

It’s the timing Mr President, when you come out with the Iranian Amateur Hour version of a terror attack within hours of your Attorney General being served with a subpoena, it’s no wonder people are a little, no, make that a lot, skeptical. Was the attack so imminent or so dangerous that it was imperative that it be released at precisely that instant or was it an effort to show how diligent your Attorney General is, the same one who sells advanced military grade weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels for no apparent or logical reason, weapons that have so far been instrumental in the killing of two federal agents and probably used in the commission of hundreds of deaths of Mexican nationals in Mexico. The same weapons that will probably be used in countless attacks and murders on both sides of the border for decades in the future. Are we supposed to believe that this same Attorney General is instrumental in rounding up an Iranian American, who was recruiting Mexican henchmen from the drug cartels to act as terrorists for the Iranians.

Yes, it’s no wonder people are looking a little fish eyed at your accusations and doubt your ability and that of your Attorney General, the one who neglected to notice multiple briefs on Fast and Furious, briefs that were addressed to him, the same one that is beginning to look like an accessory to murder.

Is it no wonder that you don’t even have the true believers hanging on every word in worshipful praise and thanks as you pronounce “toughest sanctions” against Iran for the imminent threat of a used car salesman planning an attack on the Saudi ambassador to the US.

Iran scoffs at the accusation and many in the US are more than a little doubtful Mr President, timing is important and your timing was a little too obvious; otherwise, you would not need to justify your claims, like this one explaining how American officials knew:

“know that he had direct links, was paid by, and directed by individuals in the Iranian government.”

“Now those facts are there for all to see. We would not be bringing forward a case unless we knew exactly how to support all the allegations that are contained in the indictment.”

You are a little too obvious in your defense when you say, “We would not be bringing forward a case, unless we knew exactly how to support the allegations…”, it’s integrity Mr president, you have lost your integrity. The American public and the world no longer trusts you or your Attorney General.

Susan Rice will obviously strike fear into the heart of Iran, but your State Department spokesperson, Ms Victoria Nuland confirms many American doubts when she roars like a lioness with this line:

“When you look at these details, it seems like something out of a movie. But as you begin to give more detail on what we knew and when we knew it and how we knew it, it has credibility.”

So it has credibility! You can’t get more authentic than that Mr President. Unfortunately, like the pregnant teenager in junior high school, you might be all alone in the international community in your condemnation of Iran.

So you have laid out all the facts of a deranged used car salesmen acting as international terror brokers for international leaders and so far, you have yourself convinced:

“We’ve laid the facts before them, and we believe that after people have analyzed them, there will not be a dispute that this is in fact what happened.”

Our ally Britain, whom you have ignored and insulted in the past, offered this bit of anemic support from the British foreign secretary, William Hague by saying on record that the incident:

“would appear to constitute a major escalation in Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism outside its borders. He added that the British government was “in close touch with the U.S. authorities and will work to agree an international response, along with the U.S., the rest of the E.U. and Saudi Arabia.”

We can see that the British have expressed their outrage, to be expressed further if it turns out that anyone else believes the accusations. Of course it is pretty serious if a rogue nation is sponsoring terrorism outside its borders with a covert used car salesmen.

From the Saudi foreign minister:

“this dastardly act reflects the policies of Iran.” The Saudi government has not yet decided whether to withdraw its ambassador from Tehran in protest, he said.

Oh my, how serious does it get if the Saudis can’t decide whether to withdraw their ambassador from Tehran.

You have brought this upon yourself Mr President. You have indirectly brought about feelings of indifference and apathy from Americans and the international community. You have essentially made yourself into a lame duck president and people are only counting the days until a new president can be sworn in. A year of campaigning and cheap theatrics like this will only deepen the public’s distrust in you and your administration. It is probably best if you try to tread water while trying not to make waves. In that way you may improve your image slightly, rather than creating more animosity in this country and the world.

The US has almost no business dealings with Iran, other countries make massive amounts of money by trading with Iran. Is it no wonder that the rest of the world will be looking at your latest B-Movie plot with skepticism. They don’t believe you Mr President, the Amateur Hour is almost over.

Now it’s starting to get real serious:

Though initially skeptical that top Iranian regime figures were behind a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington, U.S. government officials became convinced by the operation’s money trail and now consider it likely that Iran’s supreme leader was aware of the plan.

“This is the kind of operation — the assassination of a diplomat on foreign soil — that would have been vetted at the highest levels of the Iranian government,” said a senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about sensitive analyses. “We can’t prove that, but we do not think it was a rogue operation in any way.”

And what does Obama do? He sends Susan Rice to give a “strongly worded” message to Iran:

In a reflection of U.S. concern about the incident and its implications, Mr. Obama took the unusual step of authorizing U.S. diplomats to deliver a tough message directly to Iranian representatives. The U.S. doesn’t have formal diplomatic ties with Iran.

“The message said this type of action is outrageous and a clear violation of international law, that the Iranian government has an obligation to hold any individuals associated with this plot accountable, to cease its support for terrorism and to meet its obligations to the international community,” a senior administration official said.

And in response both Khomeini and Achmedanutjob cried….in laughter.

I mean come on; Iran is going to be afraid of the United States after Obama has done his best to ensure we are the laughingstock of the world. Wasn’t it just two years ago that he refused to back those Iranians who took to the street against the corrupt regime? John McCain:

“In the early 2009, after a corrupt election, the people of Tehran took to the streets and they were saying, ‘Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them?’ And you know what he said? He said he didn’t want to jeopardize his chances to negotiate with the Islamic government of Iran,” McCain said on “Fox & Friends.”

“That was a huge opportunity that we wasted. I’m telling you, history will judge that action by the president very harshly,” the Republican senator added.

Obama’s administration response to this?

“The president offered to engage with Iran, which is what allowed us to build international unity behind our effort to further sanction and increase pressure [on Iran.]”

Yeeeeeah. Further sanctions and increased pressure on them so much that they are now plotting attacks on our soil.

Way to go guys!

The man didn’t want us to be the “world policeman” anymore so we voluntarily turned over the reins to anyone who wants it and have now become the joke Obama and company has always envisioned us to be.

But now Iran will take us seriously because Susan Rice scolded an Iranian diplomat.

Puhlease.

There is no big stick behind Obama’s back…and Iran knows it.

Exit quote:

Analysis: If US Has Proof of Iran Plot, UN Can Be Won Over

Counter-analysis: No they can’t.

Even-more-counter analysis: So why waste our time, and potentially expose anti-terror intel techniques, weakening our defensive posture?

Bonus-counter-analysis: Just to get the UN to go along with more ineffective sanctions, which they won’t by the way.

Bargain-counter-analysis: Which of course is why, this pathetic administration will go groveling to the UN and present all their evidence.

For nothing.

The recent release of the two hikers who have been held by Iran brought the two of them briefly back into the news cycle. Sadly other larger events such as the economy have kept them out of the forefront, but there is one piece of this that has gone almost unnoticed. There are two other events that ran somewhat hand in hand with this incident:

• Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer were arrested in July of 2009 while hiking along the Iraqi/Iranian border. Last year both were sentenced to eight years in prison for espionage in a closed hearing. Upon release they stand by their assertion that they never were spies and were imprisoned simply because they are Americans. Both were freed just ahead of Ahmidenijad speaking before the United Nations.
• In March of 2009 two American journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling were arrested in North Korea for illegal entry and sentenced to twelve years of hard labor. Only a visit by former President Clinton and some apologies on his part was able to gain a pardon and release for the two.
• In December 2009 USAID worker Alan Gross was jailed for setting up Internet and satellite connections for Cuban citizens. In March 2011 Gross was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Former governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson attempted to visit gross, and was treated none too kindly by his Cuban hosts.

These incidents remind me of a story about two old college buddies, Maury and Richard (not their real names). These two are part of a circle of friends that enjoy that time honored tradition of male bonding via good natured ribbing each other, their families, members of their ancestry, significant others – you get the idea. Maury and Richard were sharing an apartment with two other friends and engaged in this practice regularly. One day Richard hurled a snide comment targeting Maury’s religion. Never one to take such slights laying down, Maury responded with an obnoxious and inappropriate (albeit completely true) remark concerning the mating habits of Richard’s sister. Richard flew into a rage and wound up not talking to Maury for a week.

Maury concluded this story with a grin on his face and summing up with, “You flick my ear; I smash you in the nuts.”

Look at the time frame for the three of these events. The Iranian and North Korean kidnappings all occurred shortly after President Obama took office, and the Cuban one came shortly after it was clear that there would be no consequences to imprisoning American citizens. Of course, that was exactly the point of these three actions.

Each one of these was done to test our president – not quite the “Gird your loins” moment that Vice President Biden promised us on the campaign trail, but more like a probe. These countries wanted to measure how much mischief each could perform, and these were starting points.

Iran wanted to be sure that they could continue with their “peaceful” nuclear program in um… peace. They knew that there would be no consequence to the regime’s rigging their national elections. When the people of Iran were dying in the streets the best that the White House could muster was passionate indifference. Nuclear weapons program can continue as scheduled.

Over in Korea, the Korean War never actually ended – the 38th parallel was only the site of the cease-fire, not an actual peace treaty. North Korea continues its weapons exporting mischief and every so often commits another open act of war against South Korea. North Korea only released their hostages after sufficiently humiliating the US with former President Clinton’s grovelling apology.

And Cuba has been content with just being Cuba – they seem to be hoping to align themselves with Venezuela as the dominant powers in the hemisphere in the post-American world. Bill Richardson’s appearance was not considered a deep enough bow to give them the humiliation of America that felt would make freeing Gross worth their while.

How should the president have handled these incidents? I don’t have the answers. As I like to tell the charges on my tour groups, if I did have the answers I’d probably have a high paying job in the White House myself. But just like not disciplining a child for minor offenses leading to worse behavior, the same happens among nations. All out war would not be the best solution to any of these, but a little bit of creativity could be used.

A nation has to protect it’s citizens. At the risk of going into into a Hobbes/Lockian tangent, how much obligation should any person feel toward a nation when its leaders are unwilling to protect them? For that matter, what is it like to be a citizen of Arizona when the government not only refuses to protect you, but sues your state when it tries to enforce the laws that your federal government won’t? 

I actually do have one idea for getting the president’s attention. Does anyone know of a way that we can convince Obama that North Korea, Cuba, and Iran are supporting the Tea Party?

Cross Posted at Brother Bob’s Blog

Of course, the 9/11 Truther movement probably has its most receptive fan base in the Middle East.

About six days ago, Iranian leader Ahmadinejad made Truther claims before the UN General Assembly:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he believes – as an engineer – the World Trade Center towers could not have been brought down by aircraft.

Interviewed after his address to the UN General Assembly sparked a walkout, he told the AP news agency some kind of planned explosion must have occurred.

But he stopped short of saying the US staged the disaster 10 years ago.

He had been widely condemned for using his UN address to brand the US killing of Osama Bin Laden a 9/11 cover-up.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Ahmadinejad has pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories. Following his speech last year to the UN General Assembly, ALLAHPUNDIT makes the point:

Today’s journey into Trutherism is new, though, I think. To be sure, he’s been pushing conspiracy theories about 9/11 (and not just 9/11) in interviews for years as a modern-day complement to his Holocaust denial, but as far as I know this is the first time he’s broached the subject from the podium at the UN.

It seems like a great number of people in the Middle East prefer to entertain the tantalizing notion that the U.S. government staged 9/11, framing innocent Muslims as an excuse to make war.

In Pakistan:

“Many Pakistanis I spoke to in the six years that I’ve been a correspondent here say they have no idea who carried out the 9/11 attacks,” she said.

In a 2008 World Public Opinion poll, 72 percent of the Pakistani respondents said they didn’t know who were behind the attacks. As many people believed Israel was behind it as al-Qaida (4 percent), and 19 percent thought the United States itself carried out the attacks.

“This is an argument that I have heard over and over again,” said Koster. “In this conspiracy theory, the U.S. staged the attacks to have a reason for invading Afghanistan.”

The conspiracy-minded think the United States wanted to enter Afghanistan to be closer to oil sources in Central Asia, closer to China to thwart its growing economy and power, or to wipe out the Muslim community, she said.

Many voicing these perspectives were well-educated Pakistanis, she added. “For instance, a wealthy English-speaking Pakistani from an area beleaguered by the Pakistani Taliban firmly believed the U.S. wanted to extinguish Muslims.”

According to the New Republic:

the unpopularity of the United States in the Arab world continues to be fueled by the belief that Islamist terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11, with many claiming the attacks were an American, Israeli, or joint American-Israeli conspiracy. In this sense, overcoming 9/11 revisionism is, perhaps, the greatest challenge facing American public diplomacy in the coming decade: So long as such conspiracy theories persist, Arabs will continue to view American policies aimed at preventing “another 9/11” as thoroughly illegitimate since, as they see it, 9/11 is just a big American lie.

In a report on Muslim-Western relations released on July 21 of this year, the Pew Research Center asked Muslim respondents in eight countries—including Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan—whether they thought groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks on the United States. In every country, less than 30 percent of respondents professed their belief for the idea, and in Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey the level of acceptance is lower today than it was in 2006. Indeed, the same revolutionary Arab Street that toppled Mubarak in Egypt also registered the highest level of denial among all the countries surveyed, with a full 75 percent of respondents recording their disbelief.

To use a badly over-abused pun, Egyptians especially are living in “da Nile”:

Pew’s poll numbers from Egypt track closely with my own experience in the country, where I lived and conducted doctoral research during parts of its tumultuous spring. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found that 9/ll revisionism was particularly prominent among Islamists, for whom rewriting history is necessary for deflecting the accusation that their ideology motivates mass murder. “There is no Al Qaeda,” former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mehdi Akef told me in complete seriousness. “It’s an American expression. It’s just an ideology, Al Qaeda. This ideology comes from America and their coalitions.” In Akef’s inversion of reality, 9/11 constituted an American attack on the Middle East, followed by an Islamist policy of self-defense. “When they fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, Al Qaeda thinks it’s a jihad because the fight is against occupation,” he said. “And it is jihad to fight occupation. And when Americans kill civilians everywhere, it’s a big crime against humanity.”

Younger generations of Muslim Brothers echo Akef’s distortions without fail. “America did [9/11] for some business interests,” Alexandria Brotherhood leader Ali Abdelfattah said to me. Abdel Monem Abouel Fetouh, a former Brotherhood leader whom The New York Times touts as a “liberal Islamist,” agrees: “I don’t believe it was jihadists—it was too big an operation,” he told me. “This was done by a country, not individuals. It’s not a conspiracy theory—it’s just logical. They didn’t bring crimes before the U.S. justice system until now. Why? Because it’s part of the conspiracy.” Even Islam Lotfy, who recently left the Brotherhood to establish his own political party and works as a contractor for USAID in Egypt, finds American complicity in 9/11 plausible. “I can’t imagine someone flying for twenty minutes and nobody realizes it, and then another plane goes and crashes and then another in Pennsylvania,” he said. Sobhi Saleh, a former parliamentarian who is considered among the Brotherhood’s top legal thinkers, had a slightly different theory. “The Jews and the Zionist lobby [did it],” he said, referencing a book that a Lebanese Christian cleric gave him. “And this study is well known in America and it’s on the Internet. … It was a scientific research.”

Yet Islamists were hardly the only group I encountered in Egyptian society that denied Al Qaeda’s complicity in 9/11. Revolutionary socialists, who comprise an important segment of the youth activists that catalyzed the January anti-Mubarak revolt, see the machinations of global domination at work. “Personally, I think the imperial interests needed something like this,” Mustafa Shawqi, a leader in the Coalition of Revolutionary Youth, told me. “Gas tycoons—blocking any attempt for democratic change in the Arab world and serving the security of Israel.” And a number of self-proclaimed liberals sounded awfully like the Islamists when asked who was responsible for 9/11. “The CIA knows who did it. I don’t know,” said liberal Wafd party youth activist Mohamed Fouad. “It will remain a question mark. Al Qaeda is part of the theories, but it was organized with others. And let’s not forget that Al Qaeda is made and supported by the Americans.

Eric Trager concludes his piece by stating how difficult it will be to curb anti-American sentiment and resentment in the war on terror so long as Arab 9/11 conspiracy theories are the prevalent beliefs being spun and propagandized. One major problem of course, is the refusal on the part of Muslims to take ownership and responsibility that violent brethren of their religion were indeed responsible for “waking the sleeping/paper tiger” from its slumber. It is far easier to scapegoat the dysfunctions of their society upon the Jews or the U.S. Living in denial. And of course, when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda claimed the charges of responsibility were true, that they brought the Towers down, some Arabs secretly (and openly) showed anything from admiration, sympathy, or support for their romanticized version of “Robin Hood” to claims that Osama must be an agent working for the CIA. No amount of evidence to the contrary will ever be enough to convince those who want to believe in conspiracies rather than face the real causes for their miserable states.

When Ahmadinejad suggested that 9/11 wasn’t caused by al Qaeda but by the U.S. government, who else other than We the People of the United States took offense? Why, al Qaeda in Yemen, no less, in the 7th issue of Inspire Magazine for Jihadis:

“The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government. So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?” opinion writer Abu Suhail asks.

Last week, Ahmadinejad appeared before the United Nations General Assembly and blasted the U.S. for disposing of al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.

“Last year, when the need to form a fact-finding team to undertake a thorough investigation concerning the hidden elements involved in September 11 incident was brought up; an idea also endorsed by all independent governments and nations as well as by the majority in the United States, my country and myself came under pressure and threat by the government of the United States,” Ahmadinejad said, referring to the United States.

“Instead of assigning a fact-finding team, they killed the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea. Would it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring to trial the main perpetrator of the incident in order to identify the elements behind the safe space provided for the invading aircraft to attack the twin world trade towers?”

Several diplomatic delegations walked out of Ahmadinejad’s speech.

“If Iran was genuine in its animosity towards the U.S., it would be pleased to see another
entity striking a blow at the Great Satan but that’s not the case. For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics,” reads Inspire’s article. “Iran and the Shi’a in general do not want to give al Qaeda credit for the greatest and biggest operation ever committed against America because this would expose their lip-service jihad against the Great Satan.”

ALLAHPUNDIT:

“For them, al Qaeda was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world,” the article says. “Al Qaeda… succeeded in what Iran couldn’t. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories.”

That’s super, but AQ’s relationship with Iran is a lot more complicated than their propaganda would have you believe. I wonder if the tool who wrote that article realizes that and is simply pushing out standard anti-Shiite Wahhabist yammering or if he’s so low on the totem pole that he actually doesn’t know about the collusion at the top.